From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA26478; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:50:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA26805 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:50:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA25726 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lri.lri.fr (lri.lri.fr [129.175.15.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f33Eggf15022; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from sun-demons.lri.fr (sun-demons [129.175.8.90]) by lri.lri.fr (8.11.1/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id f33Egg401660 ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from (marche@localhost) by sun-demons.lri.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.2) id QAA02761 ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:42 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: sun-demons.lri.fr: marche set sender to Claude.Marche@lri.fr using -f From: Claude Marche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <15049.57698.466893.700792@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:42 +0200 To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling In-Reply-To: <20010403161252.I9381@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20010403105212.A15700@pauillac.inria.fr> <20010403185448J.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <15049.51482.197252.672850@pc803> <20010403230626W.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <20010403161252.I9381@verdot.inria.fr> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under Emacs 20.7.1 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel de Rauglaudre writes: Daniel> May I ask a question? What is exactly the problem of having just one mode: Daniel> labels being optional *and* commutation mode? What is the problem, exactly? Daniel> 1. if there are no labels, then the order is the order Daniel> 2. if there are labels, then the parameters are indicated by the labels Daniel> Where is the problem? Could you give us examples? Dear all, As Daniel, I do not understand where the problem is. My naive understanding is the following: - either a function is defined without labelled arguments, and when calling it you have to provide arguments in the right order, and you may have a partial application if you don't provide all of them. - or this function is defined with labelled arguments, possibly with default values like in LablTk, and for calling it you may provide the arguments in the order you like, omitting optional arguments if you like. And such a function call would be always considered non-partial, so that if you really want some kind of partial application then you have to eta-expand your function call. Isn't this feasible? Isn't this enough for all purposes? If not, does anybody could show a concrete example where this would not be enough? If we need to vote, I vote for any solution that would keep future ocaml versions compatible with 3.00. I do not want to use labels in functions I write, but I don't mind to use labels for calling library functions if the author as decided to use labels, like LablTk. And for the standard library, I would really prefer to have no labels, I don't see at all what we gain to have such labels ~f in List functionals. -- | Claude Marché | mailto:Claude.Marche@lri.fr | | LRI - Bât. 490 | http://www.lri.fr/~marche/ | | Université de Paris-Sud | phoneto: +33 1 69 15 64 85 | | F-91405 ORSAY Cedex | faxto: +33 1 69 15 65 86 | ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr